Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aelita Andre


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that an article on a toddler artist can not be supported by the quality of sources proposed to support this article. bd2412 T 04:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Aelita Andre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on an 11-year old artist. Most of the coverage centres around her work as a four-year old artist. I'll admit that I am nominating this because I do not think we should be publishing articles about the accomplishments of four year olds-- that business should be left to garbage tabloids. (There might be a fundamental argument to be made here: two to four year olds are generally not notable for what they do in life.) That said, there is coverage, but it all revolves around her work as a two to four year old, and I am going to say that is BLP1E or similar as a nomination rationale. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I was surprised, but this is not a single event. Subject is in very easy to find reliable secondary sources in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and at least as recently as May 2018, and about her ongoing work.  Not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done.  Aoziwe (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure what age has to do with it. If a 74 year old had taken up painting for the first time at 70 and had received the same degree of coverage in reliable secondary sources, and recognition, for whatever reason, then there would be no issue with notability?  Aoziwe (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * False comparison. a 74 year old has a lot of experience, and presumably an education. A two to four year old mostly walks, giggles, laughs, cries, throws temper tantrums, has no formal education and a limited command of language. This story of childhood artistic genius has been often repeated, and it's usually the parents doing the work. It's just silly to think a four year old makes notable art. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, it does not matter what we think (WP:POV / WP:IDONTLIKEIT ). We are governed by what is available in reliable secondary sources, and it looks like this one easily gets over the line.  Mozart was five?  Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has not been substantially updated since the subject was four years old, but a simple Google search yields numerous recent results in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, as noted by . WP:BEFORE sections C and D should have been consulted prior to this nomination. The article can and should be expanded. Armadillopteryxtalk 03:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note for administrator: Armadillopteryx was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete we should exercise extreme caution in creating articles on minors and this article is not justified at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability rather than age is the policy-driven metric for a subject's inclusion on Wikipedia. As the subject is notable per numerous secondary sources and no BLP guidelines have been violated, I don't see a substantive argument for deletion here. Armadillopteryxtalk 22:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete due to BLP concerns. If there isn't a rule against this there should be. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What BLP concerns? Armadillopteryxtalk 04:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment From the first page of Google hits on the subject:
 * 2014 article in The Atlantic
 * 2015 article in People
 * 2016 article by ABC News
 * 2017 article by SBS Australia
 * 2017 article in South China Morning Post
 * Certainly not a BLP1E. Armadillopteryxtalk 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The article should be deleted for WP:BLP issues (not explicit violations but the spirit of these guidelines) because its subject is a young child. We shouldn't be publishing such information about relatively obscure children such as her or arguably help parents exploit their own kids. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See, , , etc. for several dozen articles on people at least as young as this subject (who is hardly obscure per substantial coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources like those above).
 * I can't help but notice that all keep votes in this discussion are based on policy, while all delete votes (and the nomination itself) are basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If one's argument is that the article has BLP issues, those issues should be indicated explicitly—otherwise, how can we discuss them? Armadillopteryxtalk 09:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against art or artists (and I don't think that the other delete voters do either). This article is exploitative in nature towards a young child for financial gain for the parents and just because a handful of other articles might have similar issues doesn't mean two wrongs suddenly make a right. It violates the spirit of WP:BLP, if not presently the letter. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think my main issue with this is that statements like This article is exploitative in nature towards a young child for financial gain for the parents are purely WP:POV—and those are not the sort of sentiments around which we build an encyclopedia. It does not strike me as true that this article is exploitative, and such has certainly not been demonstrated with evidence. It seems problematic to use that assertion as an assumption on which to base an argument. Armadillopteryxtalk 10:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The article exalts the child's art skills and reputation, and has multiple links to the "childs" personal website where you can buy "their" work for a hefty price. It's a well known issue that people or others on their behalf create Wikipedia pages about themselves to build personal brands or to market products/companies. Do you think that young child ever consented to creating that website hawking "her" products or this article, which have both existed since she was no older then four years old? By the way, I checked and indeed this article has been linked to "her" website which hawks "her" merchandise since the very day you created this article in 2011. I am not accusing you of wrongdoing, I am just pointing out it has always been child exploitation. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggest that when organisations like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, who regulary and frequently win awards for the standard of their journalism, screen programs like this as per this and this that the likelihood of culpable exploitation is minimal, as too is the "parents doing the work".  (I have not seen the series though.)  If there is any exploitation or parent cheating then why not provide the reliable secondary reference for it and put that appropriately in the article.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * PS With this level and type of already national public profile, apparently with full cooperation, I am not aware of what the BLP concerns might be? Aoziwe (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This article, since the day it was created in 2011 (she was only four years old), has been linked to the "child's" personal website which hawks "her" expensive merchandise and she's been "personally" raking in countless thousands of dollars for since she was in diapers. You don't see any child exploitation red flags with that? On a different note, I have seen such a special (don't remember if it was the same one - it was something I saw in an art class years ago) about this girl and it noted there were plenty of critics about who was actually making the work. Newshunter12 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it common (borderline default) practice to link an artist's/musician's/etc. official website in the infobox and external links section? I'm the one who put it there, and for no other reason than that that is my understanding of how to create an article on a subject like this. If that's where the exploitation concern arises for you, why not just propose removing that link? And, yes, like all artists, she receives criticism of her work—and that is discussed in the article. Armadillopteryxtalk 11:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this article fundamentally violates the spirit of WP:BLP and normal artistic criticism is not the same thing as obvious child exploitation and accusations of using a toddler still in diapers to push your own work onto the market as hers. Few know this, but the original Winnie the Pooh series in real life was a terrible form of child exploitation of an innocent little boy by his parents for their own enrichment, and it greatly damaged him as a person. I hope this kid fares better. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that exploiting a child for any reason is a horrible thing to do. But I frankly see no reason why having a Wikipedia article about this subject—about whom many articles in high-profile news sources exist and continue to be produced—is exploitative. This person has received and continues to receive significant coverage for her work (regardless of what anyone thinks about it), the article is written in NPOV based on that coverage, and it could easily be expanded with new sources. Sure, some parents exploit their children, but I fail to see how this article does anything remotely like that. Armadillopteryxtalk 12:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For my part, I see this article as a furtherance and promotion of her parents' exploitation and we will have to agree to disagree about its place on Wikipedia. Thank you for keeping the debate civil on this contentious topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise. Always nice to explore disagreements calmly, as here. Armadillopteryxtalk 13:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, BLP violation, she is 11 and couldn't manage a "career" as outlined in this article or reasonably give permission for personal information of this kind to be divulged in a public article. Szzuk (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Inclusion criteria for Wikipedia articles are not based on direct permission from the subject; that treads heavily into WP:COI territory. Inclusion criteria are based on WP:NOTABILITY and coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources, which this subject clearly passes. Doesn't matter how old she is; doesn't matter why she has received this large amount of public coverage; doesn't matter what we as editors opine about the legitimacy of her career. There is a substantive collection of news articles about her spanning at least the period from 2009 to 2018, which means she meets our guidelines.
 * Which category of BLP violation do you propose she is 11 and couldn't manage a "career" as outlined in this article or reasonably give permission for personal information of this kind to be divulged falls under? Armadillopteryxtalk 15:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It fails so much at WP:BLP its not worth discussing. Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a non-answer that does not give reason to believe you can actually point out a specific BLP claim. Labeling one's position a BLP concern and then providing a strictly WP:IDONTLIKEIT justification strikes me as either confused or disingenuous. I could be wrong, but that's all I've seen from delete arguments here. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am not terribly impressed by the level of WP:PAG based arguments here. That said we are getting close to a viable consensus to delete. Hopefully another week of discussion will add some clarity one way or another.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure there are WP:PAG arguments to delete; my vote is a combination of the principles behind WP:BLP and WP:IAR. No minor whose notability rests entirely on making paintings between the ages of 2 and 4 should be notable, even if the "has been mentioned in 2 newspapers" threshold is met.  The more recent coverage is largely "this local teenager was doing art at the age of 4". power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reread the article, carefully I hope, and I am struggling to see how it violates any BLP principles.  As far as I can tell it is not invasive, it is not titillating, it is not solacious, it does not reveal any personal details that are not aleady very readily available in multiple places.  I do not see how it supports commercial interests any more than we allow for any other creative person.  I do not see how it encourages exploitation of children.  (While I have been around wikipedia for a while, I am still learning my way so am happy for anyone to offer advice either on talk here or on my talk if they wish to.)  We in wikipedia cannot promote anyone.  We are fully dependent on them being already noted in independent reliable sources (IRS).  I too struggle with the concept of a 22 month old producing their own art work.  But as stated, we are relient on what the IRS tell us.  However, I have also read in detail a selection of sources quoted in the article, and I believe I can safely say that the current articles does NOT fully represent a balanced view of art critique stated in those articles, and hence the current article fails WP:NPOV.  While I still believe the subject is notable, and does not violate BLP, it does need some work to fix NPOV, but this can be readily done from sources already listed.  Aoziwe (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I largely second 's comment. and I have made some cursory edits to the article to remove prose that sounded POV. This was the first article I created as a new editor, and re-reading it now, I see I mimicked the laudatory tone of some of the sources in a way that I have since learned to notice and avoid. I think that the article can readily be expanded with balanced critique and other material that has been published since 2011. Armadillopteryxtalk 07:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Sources (ordered chronologically)     <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Aelita Andre to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>

<ul><li>Comment: The subject is also covered in books (primarily books aimed towards children):<ol><li> https://www.amazon.com/Fantastic-Young-Artists-Nonfiction-Readers/dp/1425849822 says: "With TIME For Kids content, this book aligns with national and state standards and will keep grade 4 students engaged in learning."The book notes: "Abstract Aelita Aelita Andre (ey-LEE-tuh AHN-drey) is a young abstract artist from Australia. When she was two years old, her paintings were in an art show. People who saw her paintings did not realize she was so young. They were very impressed by her art. By the time she was four, her paintings often sold for as much as $10,000 each. Aelita likes to add objects to her paintings. She has added feathers, plastic figures, or masks to some of her artwork. She has even added glitter."</li> <li> The book notes: "Fun Fact The youngest internationally recognized painter in the world is six-year-old Aelita Andre. Aelita lives in Australia and has been painting since she was two. Her work has sold for thousands of dollars, and her shows regularly sell out. Check her out at www.aelitaandre.com."</li> <li> The book notes: "Underline the correct words (Ø means 'zero article'). The colourful world of Aelita Andre Aelita Andre is a six-year-old artist from Melbourne, Australia. She loves colours, and her paintings are bright and wild. She sometimes adds small toys to her pictures, such as plastic dinosaurs and butterflies. The young painter has already earned more than £100,000, and people have described her as 'the youngest professional artist in the world'. When Aelita was five, her work was on show in an art gallery in New York.  Aelita's mother says, 'You know how young children paint for a few minutes and then lose interest? When Aelita was two, she often painted for an hour without stopping.'"</li> <li> The book notes: "Many artists have to wait until they are dead or very old to be appreciated. Not Aelita Andre who in 2011 had her very own solo exhibition at the Agora Gallery in Soho, New York at the age of four. Some of her paintings in the show sold of $27,000."</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)</li></ul>

<ul><li>Analysis of sources: The subject cannot be considered low-profile because she has received persistent coverage in over 50 sources in 15 countries over a nearly ten-year period. At 11 years old, Aelita Andre is a minor. I read Biographies of living persons and did not find any reason in the policy that would justify deleting this article either because she is a minor or because of some other reason. There is Biographies of living persons, but Aelita Andre is not relatively unknown. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * The sources span from January 2009 to September 2018.
 * The sources are from 15 countries.
 * Australia: ABC News and Current Affairs, ABC Radio Perth, The Age, Broadsheet, Mumbrella, Special Broadcasting Service, and The Sydney Morning Herald
 * Chile: es:Bío-Bío Chile TV
 * Hong Kong: South China Morning Post and Wen Wei Po
 * Italy: it:Il Cittadino (quotidiano di Lodi), Corriere della Sera, and la Repubblica
 * France: L'Express
 * Germany: Deutsche Presse-Agentur and Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung
 * New Zealand: Scoop
 * Nigeria: The Guardian
 * Russia: Russia Beyond and RT
 * Spain: 20 minutos, ABC, Antena 3
 * Taiwan: zh:ETtoday新聞雲
 * Turkey: Sabah
 * United Kingdom: Belfast Telegraph, BBC Online, Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian
 * United States: ABC News, Associated Press Television News, The Atlantic, CBS, Business Insider, Complex, The Daily Beast, El Nuevo Día, International Business Times, New York Post, The New York Times, People, Reuters, The Washington Post, and WNBC
 * Vietnam: vi:24h (trang web) and Thanh Niên
 * The subject has been covered in books (primarily for children).


 * Delete There is no doubt that through the efforts of Aelita's parents, she received media attention in 2009 and 2011. This individual and situation falls under several policies that when considered in conjunction with one another, provides an argument that the community must make a decision based upon not only PAG reasons but an additional moral and ethical responsibility when relating to children. In particular, looking at WP:BLP1E, WP:LASTING, and WP:SUSTAINED. In the 7 years since, she has not received any further significant attention with respect to recent work clearly suggesting little historical importance beyond the events of 2009 and 2011.
 * One or two events is contemplated in BLP when considering whether an article may harm an individual. In 2009 and 2011, Aelita was aged 2 and 4 respectively. We must take this under consideration when examining the need for privacy, something central to BLP. Finally, if you read the lead section of WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Reading the New York Times and TIME comments about her artwork provide enough reasons as to why we need to do the right thing here and delete the article and content about a two and four year old. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One or two events is contemplated in BLP when considering whether an article may harm an individual. In 2009 and 2011, Aelita was aged 2 and 4 respectively. We must take this under consideration when examining the need for privacy, something central to BLP. Finally, if you read the lead section of WP:BLP, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Reading the New York Times and TIME comments about her artwork provide enough reasons as to why we need to do the right thing here and delete the article and content about a two and four year old. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete essentially tabloid material, not encyclopedic material. There's been a number of WP articles on young people with  accomplishments that would be non notable  if they were not  young and good looking -- typically high school age or undergraduates who happened to be working in a lab from which a moderately important paper was published. From a newspaper feature editor's point of view, they make for good articles. Extending this to yet earlier ages for accomplishments not notable if they were not  so young/   I remind everyone that a prodigy is someone who performs on the same level as an adult professional, not just one who performs better than expected for their age. . The best of the many possible WP rules that can be used to remove an article like this is NOT PROMOTION.  DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.